Re: Debian LSB Status
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 06:57:38PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: It had been my understanding that our init system and/or runlevels were an issue as well; is that a part of the spec we don't have to comply with for the specific certification we are seeking? [The] 1.2 spec [clarified] that the expected behavior of init scripts and runlevels called for in the specification only applied to LSB-conformant applications, and not to LSB-conformant implementations (i.e. distributions). There were actually a couple of other init-script related problems too. One was that the LSB allowed LSB packages to specify which runlevels they'd be run in, and gave meanings to those runlevels -- which, naturally enough, matched Red Hat's defaults and didn't match ours. This has been fixed to allow the install_initd binary to map them as appropriate. Our install_initd doesn't actually take advantage of this possibility at the moment, though. See: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.2.0/gLSB/runlevels.html Another was that the LSB claims control over the /etc/init.d/ namespace, and thus limits the scripts distributions can put in there without risking a conflict with some future LSB package. All the init.d scripts in woody/i386 are reserved for LSB compliant distributions, however, so this shouldn't be a problem. See http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/init/init.txt Note that we should probably either make a practice of registering our script names with LANANA as we create them in future, or start using /etc/init.d/debian.org-foo. :-/ I'm not sure which of these would've been what was discussed at debconf, but they've all been adequately fixed, as far as I'm aware. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.'' pgpIsK8ihjIaP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian LSB Status
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 08:24:25AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Debian 3.0r0 (woody), is close, but not quite, in compliance with LSB 1.2. The outstanding issues are: [snip] Thanks for this extremely informative report. It had been my understanding that our init system and/or runlevels were an issue as well; is that a part of the spec we don't have to comply with for the specific certification we are seeking? It certainly seemed the case at DebConf that most of us believed that our init system was a stumbling block to certification. Pointers to any FAQ on this issue are welcome. -- G. Branden Robinson| Yesterday upon the stair, Debian GNU/Linux | I met a man who wasn't there. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | He wasn't there again today, http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | I think he's from the CIA. pgp9i6I7F2BSf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian LSB Status
On Aug 29, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 08:24:25AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Debian 3.0r0 (woody), is close, but not quite, in compliance with LSB 1.2. The outstanding issues are: [snip] Thanks for this extremely informative report. It had been my understanding that our init system and/or runlevels were an issue as well; is that a part of the spec we don't have to comply with for the specific certification we are seeking? It certainly seemed the case at DebConf that most of us believed that our init system was a stumbling block to certification. The main issue with init systems and runlevels was due to ambiguities in the 1.0 and 1.1 specification documents; they were resolved in the 1.2 spec to clarify that the expected behavior of init scripts and runlevels called for in the specification only applied to LSB-conformant applications, and not to LSB-conformant implementations (i.e. distributions). So (for example), there is no need for '/etc/init.d/xfs' status to work in Debian; you would, however, have to implement it if distributing LSB packages of XFree86. I'm not sure if there's an FAQ per se, but /usr/share/doc/lsb/README.Debian should cover most of the relevant issues if the package is installed. (I will update it with info from aj's very informative post.) Chris -- Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ Computer Systems Manager, Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Mississippi 125B Lewis Hall - 662-915-5765
Re: Debian LSB Status
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 07:37:10AM -0700, Grant Bowman wrote: What is (specifically) the current Debian perspective on LSB status? Debian 3.0r0 (woody), is close, but not quite, in compliance with LSB 1.2. The outstanding issues are: * alien's permissions and ownership handling (the woody version uses the cpio portion of the rpm exclusively, which is buggy; the version in unstable fixes the known problems) * pax has a minor POSIX violation wrt the major/minor numbers in non-device fields (also fixed in unstable) * our glibc has a number of POSIX compliance bugs; see Bug#156821 * kernel 2.4.18 has a number of POSIX compliance bugs, fixed in 2.4.19. There're 2.4.19 kernel-images in unstable, but the bf2.4 version used for boot-floppies hasn't been updated; see Bug#158026. * our glibc has the traditional Linux version of nice(), whose behaviour doesn't comply with POSIX. A waiver's been requested, see: http://www.opengroup.org:8000/lsb/publicpr/PRView?PR=0014 * the LSB runtime tests have buggy implementations of the msync and mprotect tests -- the former results in a false FAIL, the latter in a false FAIL or a hang, depending on your circumstances. Waivers have been granted for these, see: http://www.opengroup.org:8000/lsb/publicpr/PRView?PR=0009 http://www.opengroup.org:8000/lsb/publicpr/PRView?PR=0010 The alien, pax, and kernel changes should be fine for a point revision of woody, as should the glibc changes in Bug#156821, if accepted by the maintainers. The nice() changes probably aren't acceptable for a point revision (that's Joey's (Martin Schulze, stable release manager) opinion and mine, anyway), but it seems plausible that a waiver can be granted at least for the time being. In the meantime, you should be able to make your system LSB 1.2 compliant by: (a) running woody (b) adding deb http://people.debian.org/~ajt/lsb/ woody/lsb main to your sources.list, and installing libc6, and alien (c) running a 2.4.19 (or later) kernel (d) installing the lsb package and you should be able to demonstrate your system's complaince by: (e) installing pax (from the woody/lsb site) (f) installing tcsh (g) downloading the lsb-runtime-tests package from http://ftp.freestandards.org/pub/lsb/test_suites/released/binary/ (h) installing the test suite with `alien -ic lsb-runtime-tests-*.rpm' (i) setting up a password for the new vsx0 user, logging in as the vsx0 user (preferably at the console), and running ./run_tests (accepting the default options) (g) kill -9'ing the T.mprotect processes when they hang the test suite Note the tests take many hours to run, and that they create users and put include many setuid root binaries that are probably trivially exploitable, and it's probably a good idea to reformat and reinstall after running it. The testsuite isn't really meant for users to run over their own system. Finally, if you find an LSB package you want to install in general, running (h) alien -i lsb-blah-*.rpm on it. (The extra `-c' for the lsb-runtime-tests rpm is due to a bug in the runtime-tests: it's missing the required dependency on lsb) Anyway, once there's a decision on the nice() issue, we'll be aiming to get an official compliance statement done so as to obtain the available bragging rights. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.'' pgpqNjGlRpipa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Debian LSB Status
What is (specifically) the current Debian perspective on LSB status? RedHat, SuSE and Mandrake have become Linux Standard Base (LSB) Certified. While Bdale's comment is interesting, it does not speak to Debian's LSB status. http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.081402/60275 The LSB is an important step in the evolution of Linux, one which I hope will help ensure that Linux distributions become ever more compatible in all the ways that really matter to users and developers, said Bdale Garbee, Debian Project Leader. As part of fulfilling our vision of Debian as a Universal Operating System, we intend to continue working both to ensure that Debian is fully capable of running standards-compliant applications, ant that Debian remains an excellent platform for developing them! Thanks, -- -- Grant Bowman[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian LSB Status
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 07:37:10AM -0700, Grant Bowman wrote: What is (specifically) the current Debian perspective on LSB status? http://people.debian.org/~taggart/debconf2/ -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
